|
December 21st 2012... (pg. 9)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
that's precisely the point, it IS considered undeniable. you won't find a single biologist that doesn't subscribe to the theory of evolution. just because us laymen or sections of the american christians don't understand it doesn't, in any way, challenge its accepted validity.
those that study diseases and viruses might disagree with you ;) |
LOL, when have people spreading dogma ever denied their own rhetoric??
of course they're ALL going to subscribe to it--
secondly: since when has mass support = truth?? (again, truth being infallible truth)
ok, what i mean to say is that science is the new religion: it doesn't answer every question raised by man, and it can't. However, It claims that it can (even if it can't answer it right now), and i think that's what annoys me. science is just as much a game of faith as religion is, except their dealing with "truths" on different levels.
how is scientific research done? if you think about it, i don't think it's as based in the world, or as empirical as it claims to be. 90% of studies involve massive amounts of 1) creation, and 2) interpretation (one of if not THE most relative things humans can do).
(I'd have to write a 1000 page book on what's wrong with scientific documents to explain properly, but i'll paraphrase, and hope you can elaborate the key points on your own.)
1) creation of studies (the decision to study X) creates bias in me as an individual studying X. i'm naturally going to look for my hypotheses within any study, which means i'm leaving stuff out, and focusing on what i'm looking for.
2) all results i get from my study are thus interpreted by me. I know what i'm looking for: i've got a gist of my hypotheses. Even if it's vague, i have themes that i BELIEVE to be true, that i'm trying to PROVE (despite scientific falsifiability). so, i chuck the results into my paper, say the facts, and then i'm let loose to 'explain' the stats in my favour. the stats are there for you to see also, but scientific documents aren't JUST STATS! they're the scientist babbling on about meanings....
anyways, this is a wopping rant... enough already.
I'm not religious or a scientist, but it seems like religion gets bashed by everyone, while the new "in thing" never even gets questioned- it's the new paradigm, and it's great it's working now, but it doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with it. if you're cynical enough to bag anyone who holds different views than you, PCK, you should be 'cynical' enough to see that.
and what i meant was, the belief, or following the belief won't change OUR (as opposed to THEIR) day to day lives. the community of scientists making our lives better (as it deffinitly does) doesn't explain the load of serence C*nts who love einstein and evolutionary theory but don't have any clue as to what either of them are, mean or even signify in the world. people who are scientists, like people used to be christians. just because it's the new faith.
also, that pic is awesome :D :haha: |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
if there is something better that explains what is observed and is tested then evolution is proved false. what about the alternative? how can you falsify some "intelligent designer" waving his arms about and everything magically pops into place???
the extreme views of religion claim they know it all. there was a time where if you don't agree you get burned at the stake. even when you proved them wrong...... |
don't think my response to science is that different to being burnt at the stake at the moment :p
that's what i'm saying about falsifiability and TRUTH, which is what i was saying about evolutionary theory.
evolutionary theory is NOT FALSE! that doesn't make it TRUE! arguably it's not even falsifiable tho because, every piece of fossil is fitted into place, everything is EXPLAINED away, but little empirical evidence is possible (there's nothing forseeable evidence that could arise that could disprove evo, because we can't test it!).
altho gumble said it is testable, so perhaps i have to conceed to some extent: evolution may be true, in instances, but perhaps, (hope u folow me philbs), like douglass adam suggested: humans are just some extra-terrestial who knocked the monkeys (assumed to be our ancestors) off the face of the earth.
there is no way to scientifically (EMPIRICALLY) prove that evolution HAPPENED. it might have happened. is that truth?
+1 to the 42 response. |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
don't think my response to science is that different to being burnt at the stake at the moment :p
|
you are not being burned just yet. :p
| quote: |
that's what i'm saying about falsifiability and TRUTH, which is what i was saying about evolutionary theory.
evolutionary theory is NOT FALSE! that doesn't make it TRUE! arguably it's not even falsifiable tho because, every piece of fossil is fitted into place, everything is EXPLAINED away, but little empirical evidence is possible (there's nothing forseeable evidence that could arise that could disprove evo, because we can't test it!).
|
| quote: | from wiki
Empirical data is data that is produced by experiment or observation.
|
you could disprove evolution by observing different species over time and seeing how they change or react to changes in their environments. if nothing happens and they don't change then you can say you have tested evolution and it doesn't seem to be working. today however, that is not the case. so it is accepted. relativity is a theory. if you can build an engine that lets you travel faster than light, then have disproved that theory. again that isn't the case so far so it is accepted. evolution is not true. but it has passed the tests and has explained observations so it is accepted until something else comes along that is better. if nothing does, well then it is true :p
| quote: |
altho gumble said it is testable, so perhaps i have to conceed to some extent: evolution may be true, in instances, but perhaps, (hope u folow me philbs), like douglass adam suggested: humans are just some extra-terrestial who knocked the monkeys (assumed to be our ancestors) off the face of the earth.
there is no way to scientifically (EMPIRICALLY) prove that evolution HAPPENED. it might have happened. is that truth?
+1 to the 42 response. |
that might well be the case. if evidence is found that supports that then yay! go the ET scenario. but like i said, so far that is not the case.
very religious people have a theory, that they say is fact. the universe is around 6000 years old. if i can find my astronomy lab book in the morning i will show you how i worked out the age of the universe with OBSERVATIONS AND FACTS AND OTHER EMPIRICAL STUFF IN CAPITAL LETTERS
:D |
|
|
| James Brooke |
| you guys really need to find something better to do with your time! |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by James Brooke
you guys really need to find something better to do with your time! |
whats wrong with mass debating? |
|
|
| James Brooke |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
whats wrong with mass debating? |
oh i see what you did there.... :D |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by James Brooke
oh i see what you did there.... :D |
good, you've had your laugh, now run along back to your playstation and let the adults continue their talk :D |
|
|
| sunrise3500 |
| come to the end of the worldenium party dammit! :( |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
how can you falsify some "intelligent designer" waving his arms about and everything magically pops into place??? |
sorry, coming back to the last post :(
religion shouldn't BE falsifiable! another of my points that i'm tryna make is seeing everything thru the tinted glass of science-- as if nothing exists that science doesn't explain, or that isn't open to scientific explanation...
God is a good example because science literally can never prove nor disprove it's existence- the entity of god, if it exists, can not be proven or disproven with human methods (this is a facet of God. you can disprove things related to God, but not God itself because it cannot be touched by such things as scientific method). that's why the idea is so convincing to some (and so UNconvincing to you little scientists :p )
the whole premise of God's existence is that you cannnot prove it. that's what faith is. proof of god is and never will be scientific.
i'm not saying it's true, i'm just saying it's an alternative, and that science is very sneaky, as were religions back in the day, in asserting it's dominance over other belief structures.
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
you could disprove evolution by observing different species over time and seeing how they change or react to changes in their environments. if nothing happens and they don't change then you can say you have tested evolution and it doesn't seem to be working. today however, that is not the case. so it is accepted. evolution is not true. but it has passed the tests and has explained observations so it is accepted until something else comes along that is better. if nothing does, well then it is true :p
very religious people have a theory, that they say is fact. the universe is around 6000 years old. if i can find my astronomy lab book in the morning i will show you how i worked out the age of the universe with OBSERVATIONS AND FACTS AND OTHER EMPIRICAL STUFF IN CAPITAL LETTERS
:D |
i think we're speaking about different things, or maybe i'm just all over the place, which is very likely :p
the fact that nothing can be proven true (merely 'true' for now) is gross to me... but that's why i ditched science for philosophy i suppose :p
science to me, is irritating because i think that everybody preaches it but barely anybody understands it. i don't dislike it, but i don't dislike religion either: i think they've both done things for the world, but i think that religion gets a bad rap these days, and is simply misunderstood. if you read the bible, 90% of the things in there are simply to keep us alive (jews not aloud to eat pork logically formed because in those days it was really hard to prepare good pork, and alot of people got sick, or died from eating it: therefore, religious practice not to eat pork..). the ideas about homosexuals that it gets bashed for are pretty ambiguous- creations of the church, rather than the religion itself (in the bible there's like "don't lie with another man", in the same paragraph as "don't lie with a woman during her period" or something like that)-
i dunno, , it's way too late for this, i'm scattered. point is, christianity isn't all that bad, science is annoying because it's the new opiate of the masses, and it's great, but it should be left to the scientists. these people who havn't read the bible, and havn't read darwin's origin of species, but speak volumes on both, just because they've seen some television documentary about being wankers really annoy me.... but then, i guess pretentious a-holes (by which i mean people who think they know a lot but know nothing) is what life's all about isn't it.
(oh and i claim ignorance on all issues, just so nobody can call me pretentious)
think that last bit belongs in the hate thread...
p.s: i guess you can see science as the theory after religion: religion was proven wrong, science is it's replacement: the ultimate paradigm shift of modernity, eh...:p |
|
|
| Fledz |
The whole point of science is theory. If you consider a current theory as absolute and undeniable fact then you've lost your ability to keep an open mind and actually be a proper scientist. Yes, it's as close to empirical evidence as you're going to get but a proper scientist won't ever say "Yep, that's 100% correct. I can go and bull around for the rest of my life now". If a theory comes along that topples it, then it is no longer valid and the new theory takes over. Hence why I like science, it explains things very well yet keeps you on your toes and keeps research and new discoveries going.
I'm a scientist and evolution is brilliant and all that, but to conclude that scientific fact is the be all and end all is just a cheap shot at religion. At the end of the day, religious zealot or staunch atheist is the same just on opposite ends of the scale. Find the balance, keep an open mind to things and don't blow away scientific fact (as factual as it can possibly be) as anti religious propaganda. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
At the end of the day, religious zealot or staunch atheist is the same just on opposite ends of the scale. |
bollocks. Im so ing tired of hearing this.
Where are our subsidised schools? Our tax-free businesses? Our systematic meddling in government and the public sphere? Our protests against art considered offensive to god? Our terrorism (to be rewarded in heaven)? Our promotion of thoroughly un-scientific nonsense which we try to force into public schools? Our long and historical opposition to ideas and notions that debunk superstitious truths?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
LOL, when have people spreading dogma ever denied their own rhetoric?? |
no offence, but i dont think you know what either of those words mean. evolutionary theory is neither dogma nor rhetoric (by ANY stretch of the imagination)
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
of course they're ALL going to subscribe to it-- |
why "of course". if you mean "of course, because every single piece of available evidence supports it", then yeah, i would agree with you. otherwise you're not talking sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
secondly: since when has mass support = truth?? (again, truth being infallible truth) |
it doesn't obviously. but if 100% of those best suited to understanding and testing such a theory come up with the same answer, why on earth should i listen to someone like you that doesn't have the necessary tools to judge such a theory?
einstein's theories are still theories, yet they are at the cornerstone of modern PCs. is that "proof" enough for you, or are personal computers merely an unprovable theory?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
ok, what i mean to say is that science is the new religion: |
absolute nonsense. nothing could be further than the truth. the difference being that scientists dont start with an answer and work backwards, and they also modify or EVOLVE their theories as new evidence is revealed.
religion HAS NO EVIDENCE. its not the same ing thing. no, really.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
it doesn't answer every question raised by man, and it can't. |
so? religion doesn't answer a single question, so what's your point?
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
However, It claims that it can (even if it can't answer it right now), and i think that's what annoys me. |
where has science claimed that? scientists are the first people to say "we don't know" and normally that's the first step in a journey of discovery.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
science is just as much a game of faith as religion is, except their dealing with "truths" on different levels. |
that's just new-age horse that those that believe in crystal healing think. science = testable hypothesis, whether by empirical study, observable phenomena, or predictive mathematics.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
how is scientific research done? if you think about it, i don't think it's as based in the world, or as empirical as it claims to be. 90% of studies involve massive amounts of 1) creation, and 2) interpretation (one of if not THE most relative things humans can do). |
so, explain computers, electricity, travelling to the moon/mars, mathematic proofs, medicines, the automobile, huge structures made of steel and concrete etc etc etc etc.
you are surrounded by and utilise scientific proofs every day of your life. equating that with theological examination is pure fantasy.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
2) all results i get from my study are thus interpreted by me. I know what i'm looking for: i've got a gist of my hypotheses. Even if it's vague, i have themes that i BELIEVE to be true, that i'm trying to PROVE (despite scientific falsifiability). so, i chuck the results into my paper, say the facts, and then i'm let loose to 'explain' the stats in my favour. the stats are there for you to see also, but scientific documents aren't JUST STATS! they're the scientist babbling on about meanings.... |
luckily you're not the only scientist on the planet investigating those questions then isn't it? unless of course you're going to argue that there is one massive scientific conspiracy aimed at falsifying evidence for *insert stupid reason here* ?
how do you explain scientific consensus?
anyways, this is a wopping rant... enough already.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
I'm not religious or a scientist, but it seems like religion gets bashed by everyone, while the new "in thing" never even gets questioned- |
no, the "in thing" is to doubt scientific validity without having the first reason to do so.
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
if you're cynical enough to bag anyone who holds different views than you, PCK, you should be 'cynical' enough to see that. |
it has nothing to do with cynicism. it has to do with this "new agey" mantra that's become popular for the ignorant to doubt rigorous peer-review and insurmountable evidence and mathematical proof in favour of....well im not so sure exactly. empty rhetoric? yeah, that'll do. people are free to think whatever they wish, just as i am free to pass commentary on it.
if you wanna deny a particular scientific endeavour, then pull our your bunsen burner and microscope and go prove something wrong, or change a theory for the better. until then you're merely pissing into the wind. |
|
|
|
|
